From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Z4OgA-0003nk-IR for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:19:35 +0000 Received: by wiwd19 with SMTP id d19so65653396wiw.0 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:19:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Korsgaard References: <1434005650-28131-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <1434005650-28131-2-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <87bngli13j.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20150615051202.GJ6325@pengutronix.de> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:19:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20150615051202.GJ6325@pengutronix.de> (Sascha Hauer's message of "Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:12:02 +0200") Message-ID: <87h9q9mob7.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Barebox List >>>>> "Sascha" == Sascha Hauer writes: Hi, >> > + crc_expect = cyg_crc16(data, len); >> >> Why crc16? RFC916 states that the checksum is the inverted 1s complement >> 16bit sum, E.G. like TCP/UDP/IP header checksums: > Indeed CRC16 is not correct here according to RFC916. We can implement > the original checksum algorithm, I'm not sure if that's a good idea > though. Plain checksumming does not detect lost 0 characters. True, but missing/extra 0 characters would normally get caught by the length mismatch, so I'm not sure it is a real problem. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox